United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
652 F.3d 1244 · 2011
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3557 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Begay v. United States · Custis v. United States · James v. United States · Chambers v. United States · Johnson v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“risk levels provide a categorical and manageable standard that suffices to resolve the case before us.”); id. at 2285 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o satisfy this categorical approach, it is not necessary that every conceivable factual offense covered by a statute fall within the ACCA. Rather, the proper inquiry is whether the conduct encorm passed by the elements of the offense, in the ordinary case, qualifies under the ACCA as a violent felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nder Oklahoma law, mere offensive touching satisfies the requirement for force in a battery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.